Re: [PATCH 2/4] test: Skip trace() of a 1-byte struct

[Eugene Loh <eugene.loh@oracle.com>]

This patch is rescinded in deference to another patch that simply 
changes the .r file to match the current output.

On 7/22/25 09:46, Nick Alcock wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2025, eugene loh outgrape:
>
>> From: Eugene Loh <eugene.loh@oracle.com>
>>
>> With commit 3a551bfd ("trace: fix char-array handling"), this test
>> started to FAIL.  Meanwhile, the behavior of trace() on a 1-byte
>> struct is poorly defined.  Users wishing clear semantics should use
>> print() or other actions.
> This makes trace() much, much less useful. I'd say NAK, if this means
> we're going to not come up with any useful behaviour. Why not define
> something, then use it?
>
> Nobody is going to say "look at the size of something and then do a
> print() rather than a trace() if it's too small". Even looking at this
> commit I'm not sure what "too small" is (one byte? four bytes?
> sizeof(int)? sizeof(long)? A cacheline? what?) so I don't see how our
> users can be expected to.